Neocons Powerless to Scuttle Nuclear Deal with Iran, but They'll Keep Trying

Now that Obama has locked in the support necessary to maintain a veto of any Congressional vote of disapproval of the P5+1 deal on Iran's nuclear program, discussion has quickly shifted to what the GOP and Likudnik Democratic dead-enders in the House and Senate can do to scuttle the agreement. The answer, based on Jennifer Steinhauer's story, "Republicans Weigh New Ways to Upend Iran Nuclear Deal," is very little. The principal idea at this point is reimposing economic sanctions:

Republicans have been thinking through alternatives for months, knowing that Mr. Obama would probably be able to fend off efforts to override his veto of a resolution scuttling the accord. The agreement’s implementation seemed assured Wednesday when Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, came out in support, the 34th Democrat to do so, providing Mr. Obama with enough votes to prevent an override of a resolution of disapproval of the deal.

For its part, the House will also consider the disapproval resolution next week when Congress returns. Democrats hope to assemble enough votes to sustain a veto in that chamber, as well. A veto override must pass both the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote. 

Approving new sanctions, even many set to be lifted as part of the accord, is one possible path, said several aides to lawmakers, because it would both send a message to Tehran and the White House and put Democrats in a difficult position.

Under the agreement reached with six world powers, Iran would be released from congressionally imposed sanctions related to its nuclear program. Still, Congress could pass new, even tougher terrorism-related sanctions on key Iranian leaders. 

The White House has repeatedly said the lifting of current sanctions would not lessen Washington’s resolve to counter Iranian aggression in the Middle East. But approval of additional sanctions could undermine the legitimacy of the United States with its negotiating partners. 

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, alluded to the strategy just before Congress left for its August recess. 

“One of the first things Congress will do when we finish this debate, I would say give it 60 days, we will pass that extension” on sanctions, Mr. Corker told reporters after a briefing with Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz.

***

Senators Mark S. Kirk, Republican of Illinois, and Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, both opponents of the current Iran accord, introduced legislation this year that would extend the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016, for another decade. 

While most lawmakers understand the need to have legal authority to “snap back” any sanctions that are lifted, Republicans would most likely move to enforce those sanctions, putting Democrats in a bind in an election year by pushing for a vote on legislation to punish Iran for killing Americans and Israelis, and for supporting Hezbollah, leaving the president little choice but to veto because if he signed it, the Iranians would say they are no longer bound by broader agreement. 

Even if these sanctions are never reimposed, Republicans could use the issue in an effort to divide Democrats in 2016.

This is a perfect example of Congress confusing talking points with reality, which, as you know, if you have ever read The Federalists Papers, was a concern of the Founding Fathers. Create a national government with its own national capital and you create a situation where elected representatives will leave home (and their watchful constituents) for long amounts of time and take up residence in a remote city where they will be beset by agents with special interests. These agents will replace issues concerning the general welfare with their own special interests.

If Congress reintroduces sanctions after the United Nations has already validated the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran, so much the better for Europe, China and Russia. These countries won't have to concern themselves with competition from giant U.S. corporations.

At this point the only option remaining to the Saudis, Israelis and their neocon agents is war; and in order to have a war with Iran, control of the White House is a prerequisite. Hillary would be amenable to such an option, maybe a false-flag op that could be whipped into blackmailing Europe to readopt sanctions. Walker would do anything he was told by the neocons.

But the problem for the Saudis, Israelis and their neocon agents is the public has left them far behind. With the Taliban biding its time as the puppet government in Kabul gradually disintegrates, and with Islamic State celebrating the one-year anniversary of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq, not to mention U.S. participation in wars in Yemen and Libya, there is no appetite for more war. But since Congress and the Presidency exist at this point almost solely to wage war, they grow increasingly isolated from a public they are supposed to represent.

GOP Plans To Run the World from Congress + Good News Out of Tikrit

Hillary should thank her lucky stars that her Tuesday press conference, where she defended the use of her personal email account to conduct official USG business while she was Secretary of State, coincided with an open letter to Iran penned by junior Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of  Arkansas, that threatened to abolish any agreement reached by the Obama administration on that country's nuclear program. The Cotton letter, signed by 46 other Republicans in the Senate, created a social and mainstream media firestorm, which effectively bumped the Hillary email imbroglio from the top spot in the cultural consciousness. With Kerry appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there was plentiful soundbite video of Team Obama vs. GOP presidential aspirants.

The permanent circus of partisan conflict has spread from government funding measures and Obamacare to the conduct of foreign policy. Republicans are feeling their oats. Wading into foreign affairs to undercut ongoing White House diplomacy is the GOP's way of saying, "We're not going to lose Congress in the foreseeable future. We might not win the presidency. But we don't have to. We'll run everything from the House and Senate."

One silver lining here is that Obama's ISIS AUMF request appears to be dead in the water. And the good news out of Iraq is that Islamic State has been all but defeated in Tikrit without the assistance of U.S. air power. Anne Barnard reports this morning in "Iraqi Forces Claim Western Areas of Tikrit From ISIS":

BAGHDAD — Iraqi government forces and allied militias took control of the western neighborhoods of Tikrit on Thursday, military officials said, leaving only one area, including a palace complex once used by Saddam Hussein, in the hands of Islamic State militants. 

Military officials said they were confident of declaring victory within a few days in Tikrit, a central objective in rolling back the militants and the government’s largest operation against the Islamic State since it swept into much of the country’s north and west in June. 

Top Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, visited troops near the front lines on Tuesday night and Wednesday. They called for security forces to facilitate the return of displaced civilians from Tikrit and surrounding areas. 

Bringing civilians back without revenge attacks or continuing conflict will be the next test for Iraq’s government if it holds its gains and completes the operation in Tikrit. The government mustered a 30,000-strong force, the bulk of it fighters from Shiite militias, in an effort to retake the city.

Note the last paragraph. This is the talking point for why the U.S. sat out the Tikrit offensive. The presence of Shiite militia backed by Iran risks the sectarian cohesion of the Iraqi state. Never mind that Islamic State fighters have been slaughtering Christians, Yazidis and Shiites and desecrating antiquities, as well as raping, crucifying and immolating. Let's play up rumors of Shiite atrocities.

And this is what reliable, pro-USG scribe Anne Barnard does farther down in her story:

Iraqi officials said they would investigate reports of atrocities, filmed and posted in recent months on social media, and committed by armed men in uniforms with the insignia of a special forces unit and other regular government forces. 

The images have been circulating on social media, and they were compiled and presented to Iraqi and United States officials by ABC News. The images raised the question of whether Iraqi forces may have run afoul of a measure that requires the United States government to cut off aid to foreign militaries that commit human rights abuses.

One video shows what appears to be a 12-year-old boy being shot to death in the street after being accused of working with the Islamic State. Another shows two civilians being shot after insisting they were not involved with the militant group; fighters then riddle their bodies with bullets. Another apparently shows a civilian being beheaded, and other images show a head propped on the front bumper of a military vehicle that appears to be an American-made Humvee.

Iraqi officials have showed footage to the BBC that they said proved that the Islamic State was using chlorine gas in roadside bombs. The images show orange clouds rising from the bombs as Iraqi ordnance disposal teams detonate them. Chlorine, while not as dangerous as substances like sarin, banned by international treaty, can cause coughing and burning eyes and in close quarters can be fatal.

What is going on is the U.S. is getting pressure from its GCC allies to cut off its support of Iraq. The last paragraph about ISIS using chlorine bombs is illuminating. I'm sure Barnard and/or her editors included it to maintain a semblance of balance.

Soon, if the reconstituted military of Iraq continues its battlefield successes against Islamic State, we shall see the jihadi ratline from Turkey in full flower once again. ISIS is a GCC/Western cat's paw. The target has always been the Shiite Crescent.

Officials Walk Back Talk of U.S.-Iraq Split While Hope for P5+1 Agreement Dims

Two stories today both confirm the importance of Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq's efforts to defeat Islamic State at the same time quoting Iraqi and U.S. officials denying that there is any rift between the two countries.

First, Helene Cooper, reporting from Washington D.C., writes in "U.S. Strategy in Iraq Increasingly Relies on Iran" that

“The only way in which the Obama administration can credibly stick with its strategy is by implicitly assuming that the Iranians will carry most of the weight and win the battles on the ground,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former special adviser to Mr. Obama who is now dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “You can’t have your cake and eat it too — the U.S. strategy in Iraq has been successful so far largely because of Iran.”

***

Landon Shroder, an intelligence analyst for corporations in Iraq who was in Baghdad last summer when Mosul fell, countered that the worry that Iran will gain influence in Iraq ignores the reality that Iran’s Shiite government is already a key Iraqi ally.

“By this stage, everybody who observed what happened in Iraq with the Islamic State should know that the main influencer in Iraq is Iran,” he said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “That’s an unpopular perception in the United States, after spending so much money and lives lost in the conflict, but it’s reality.”

Mr. Shroder said that at the moment, the only force with the ability to bring Kurdish troops, the Iraqi Army and the Shiite militias together to fight the Islamic State is Iran.

Rafid Jaboori, the spokesman for Mr. Abadi, the Iraqi prime minister, said in an interview Wednesday that Iraq had urged the United States and Iran not to play out their bilateral conflict in Iraq’s battle against the Islamic State.

“So far in general there was no clash within the two,” Mr. Jaboori said.

He drew a comparison to World War II. “Countries with different ideologies, different priorities, different systems of government, cooperated to defeat the Nazis,” he said. “It’s foreseeable that we see countries which might not get along very well in terms of their bilateral relations working to help Iraq to defeat this threat.”

Then, Anne Barnard in "Iraqis Want Lead Role in Driving ISIS From Mosul":

But as the battle continued in Tikrit, American officials, as well as some of their Iraqi counterparts, insisted that the countries’ relationship was healthy and that close military collaboration would continue against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, ISIL or by the Arabic acronym Daesh.

Even though United States warplanes are not participating in the Tikrit battle, as they have in others, the Iraqi government still welcomes continued international assistance, said Ali al-Alaaq, a close aide to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. 

“Today in Salahuddin, we were hoping that the Americans could participate in the battle against ISIS, but we have launched against ISIS alone,” he said. “We are expecting that the support will be continued, especially since we are facing a very important task in Mosul and other cities in Iraq.” 

American officials, too, tried to play down signs of strain between the United States and Iraq. 

“The United States is proud of its partnership with Iraqi forces, which has made huge impacts in weakening Daesh, and we are looking forward to more coordination with the Iraqi forces,” the United States ambassador to Iraq, Stuart E. Jones, said after meeting with Adnan al-Zurufi, the governor of Najaf, in southern Iraq. He appeared to be reassuring Iraqi officials that the United States did not oppose the use of Shiite militias known as popular mobilization forces. They have played a crucial role in the ground fight since many regular army units disintegrated as ISIS seized much of northern and western Iraq in June.

“Our direct coordination is with the Iraqi security forces, and we count on the security forces to coordinate with the popular mobilization forces and other forces that are cooperating in the fight against Daesh,” Mr. Jones said.

The problem for the Obama administration is that it has to deal with Israel's Likudniks and the sheikhs of the Gulf Cooperation Council.  Both groups are dead set against anything that smacks of a victory for Iran, including a deal on its nuclear program emerging from the P5+1 talks in Switzerland.

Michael Gordon's opaque "John Kerry Flies to Saudi Arabia to Discuss Iran Nuclear Talks" is clear enough for the reader to discern that the make or break aspect of the negotiations center on how long uranium processing restrictions should remain in effect. Ten years? Fifteen years?

Obama administration officials have said that a central goal of accord would be to preclude Iran from being able to develop enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year, should it decide to repudiate the agreement. American officials have said the breakout restrictions should last at least 10 years. Mr. Kerry, who took no questions from reporters in his appearance here, said the United States would be interested only in the “right deal.”

“Time is of the essence,” he said, “and important decisions need to be made.”

American officials have not said how long the agreement with Iran might be in effect. One possibility that has been discussed is an accord that lasts 15 years, with restrictions on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium relaxed during the final years.

This will be the petard Obama and Kerry will be hoisted upon. No sunset date will be long enough for the venal pay-to-play Congress and its Saudi and Israeli paymasters. Obama can rescind some of the Iranian sanctions himself, but he needs Congressional approval to relax all of them.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's signaling his willingness to push legislation requiring Congressional approval for any agreement that results from the P5+1 talks prior to their March 24 deadline points to the eventual necessity of an Obama veto.

If the P5+1 talks fail we will have to wait and see if there is a spillover effect on U.S.-Iranian cooperation in the war against ISIS. Failure to reach an agreement will create an even messier mess in a region that is already cracked and reeling.

Netanyahu's Request to Congress: War on Iran

The frontpage news has a tendency to lurch from one "bell cow" to the next. Recently that bell cow has been Greece's negotiations with the troika in Brussels and the Novorossiya Armed Forces victory in Debaltseve. Islamic State's war crimes have taken on a background white noise quality.

The new bell cow is Netanyahu's speech before Congress tomorrow. The paper is rife with stories -- about Israeli public opinion regarding the rift between Democrats and Likudniks, about Jews in Congress and whether they will attend Netanyahu's speech, about John Kerry's hands-on negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

What doesn't get highlighted in any of the above stories is how unprecedented it is for a House Speaker to invite the leader of a foreign country to address Congress without the consent of the Executive Branch. And it is not as if Netanyahu's address will be some pro forma exercise in praise of the filial bonds between Israel and the United States; rather, it will be a pointed critique of ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, the failure of which will likely entail some form of attack on Iran.

Basically, Netanyahu is coming to Washington D.C. to request that Congress wage war on Iran. This is what it boils down to. Netanyahu's calculation is that Obama and the Democrats, following the 2014 midterms, are dead politically, and that it is better to risk the optics of a soft coup and a display of overt partisanship than have the United States agree to a deal with Iran which formalizes its right to process uranium.

The problem with the Israeli position -- a totally decommissioning of Iran's nuclear program -- is that its only international support comes from the foully corrupt Gulf sheikhdoms, the same countries that are tacitly supporting Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

And herein lies the untenable nature of the U.S. position in the Middle East: It is tacitly working with Iran to beat back Islamic State and Al Qaeda in Iraq, Yemen and Syria while at the same time it is collaborating with the Saudis and Turks to make sure Sunni Salafi interests are preserved in these very regions. It is the dance of perpetual war.

The dance can be maintained because there is no substantive democracy in the United States. The people can vote for a peace candidate but that candidate will do nothing other than deliver up more war. All Netanyahu's appearance tomorrow will do is ram home the obvious -- Americans don't live in a democracy.

AIPAC will praise a Congress that is universally loathed by the people it purports to represent. Yet Samantha Power and Susan Rice will appear before AIPAC today in an act of obeisance.

Israel's elections are March 17. At the end of the month the P5+1 talks are supposed to conclude with the announcement of a framework agreement, the details of which are to be hashed out by summer. My guess is that a framework agreement will be reached. Congress will try to pass more sanctions. The votes are probably there to override a filibuster in the Senate. Then Obama will veto the sanctions. It should be interesting.

Some Thoughts on the Super Bowl and the U.S. Failed State

It was a rough night last night. A die-hard Seahawks fan, I kept waking up in the middle of the night with a thought as large as a billboard painted on a downtown high rise filling my head, "Why not run Lynch?" With less than a minute to go in the Super Bowl, the ball on the Patriots one-yard line, the Seahawks had three downs to let Beast Mode punch it into the end zone. Then, inexplicably, a pass play over the middle was called. Undrafted cornerback Malcom Butler jumped it, bumped in front of Ricardo Lockette and intercepted Russell Wilson. After a fight breaks out during New England's kneel down, game over. Patriots win.

I've seen Pete Carroll's explanation of the play call. He stands by it; says it made sense since the Patriots had their run-stopping defense on the field. But why throw such a risky pass, one where Russell Wilson is basically tossing the ball into the middle of the scrum? It was a shocking, appalling decision, one that is going to haunt the team for a long time. In that one play Carroll and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell cost the Seahawks not only back-to-back championships, but first-ballot Hall of Fame status to Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson.

Such a gaffe will follow the Seahawks all off-season. More than likely, it will take on a Fisher-King-like status for the players, a wound that won't heal and that will poison the franchise. Winning is mental and so is losing. Ask Tom Brady. It could be a long time before Russell Wilson gets back to the Super Bowl.

A gloomy silence descended upon my neighborhood. Where last year there were drunken cries of ecstasy, car honks, spontaneous rallies on Broadway following Seattle's shellacking of Denver; this year there was a funereal stillness and weighted hush. I put away the leftovers of my Super Bowl meal (Thai red curry with coconut milk, tofu, zucchini and potato) and went to bed a little after 7:30 PM.

Once there I realized that really the Seahawks loss was poetic justice. After improbably defeating Green Bay in overtime of the NFC Championship, they shot themselves in the foot in the Super Bowl. The offense blew it, but it was really the celebrated Seattle defense who couldn't stop Brady in the red zone in the fourth quarter that cost the Seahawks their second championship. Seattle's one red zone stop -- Jeremy Lane's interception of Brady in the first quarter -- is probably the real reason the Seahawks lost. Lane injured his wrist running back the interception, and Brady ended up skewering his replacement, Tharold Simon, for the rest of the game. Simon gave up two touchdowns, one the game-winner to Julian Edelman. So, as I say, some poetic justice.

I tried to take my mind off the game and fall asleep. I thought about a story, "G.O.P. Campaigns Scramble to Add Romney Donors," by Nicholas Confessore that appeared on Saturday. It used to be that campaign stories having to do with a presidential race were about building organizations in early primary and caucus states like New Hampshire and Iowa; that, and positions on issues and policies, and maybe endorsements. Now it is about who has the most bundlers and billionaire donors. Issues are an afterthought. The voters -- their desires -- aren't even mentioned. This is what it has come to post-Citizens United, and we pretty much have grown to accept it.

The position of this page is that such a situation cannot be maintained for too much longer without a serious shock to the system. The planned Netanyahu appearance before Congress in March is one indication that the system is breaking down. It is completely unprecedented for Congress -- in this case, Speaker of the House John Boehner -- to invite the leader of a foreign country, Israel, to address it against the wishes of the White House.

If Netanyahu goes ahead with the appearance, it will be something of a soft coup. Congress will establish the precedent that it can conduct its own foreign policy separate from the executive branch. The issue at stake here is no less than a war against Iran.

In "A Strained Alliance: Obama-Netanyahu Rift Grew Over Years," by Peter Baker and Jodi Rudoren, Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledges that Netanyahu, who knows U.S. politics very well, has written off Obama:

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior State Department official, said it looked like Mr. Netanyahu has concluded that he would rather take his chances with the Republican Congress even at the expense of his already tense relationship with Mr. Obama. 

“I really do think it represents a strategic calculation that from Israel’s point of view, this president and this White House have essentially been written off,” Mr. Haass said. “Particularly since the midterm elections, they have made the calculation that to the extent possible, they will use Congress as the channel to conduct their relationship.” 

Efraim Halevy, a former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, said that calculation was made clear in December when Israel offered no public support for Mr. Obama’s decision to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba, a move he attributed to a desire not to alienate Republicans. “Israel is now placing its bets on one side of the aisle,” Mr. Halevy said. “I think it’s a mistake.”

Israel is not even bothering with the White House anymore. Obama is the lamest of lame ducks. When NBC's Savannah Guthrie chatted yesterday with Obama in the White House kitchen prior to the Super Bowl, he looked like a guy merely marking time getting ready to clock out. Pale, frail, juiceless, Obama delivered his lines as if he didn't care whether people believed them or not. He'll probably maintain a residence in Chicago and one in Hawaii once he closes out his term, free to read and write and watch his daughters marry and raise families.

In the meantime, things will continue to deteriorate in the United States. Dollarocracy will reign supreme. Voter turnout will continue to drop as income inequality soars. Eventually, actively fighting wars in too many countries -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, you name it -- will be the country's undoing.

A Congress that Can Agree on Little Votes for Another War

For a Congress widely accepted as one of the worst, if not the worst, the House voted with alacrity to grant approval for Obama's request, introduced during his primetime speech last week, to establish (create? recreate?) a new (re-branded? remodeled?) Free Syrian Army (FSA).

This rebooted FSA is to be trained in Saudi Arabia to fight in Syria against both Islamic State and the Syrian Arab Army of Bashar al-Assad. It is the same policy that the United States has been pursuing for years with no success and only embarrassing failure to show for the effort. (Earlier this week the FSA was reported to have agreed to a ceasefire with ISIS in a Damascus suburb.) The only difference now is the program is overt not merely covert; and it is to be administered by the Pentagon not the CIA. Possibly, with reports that the CIA is working with Al Qaeda's Syria affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, FSA will serve as a new umbrella for the myriad jihadi groups operating in the Levant.

The silver lining in yesterday's 273-to-156 House vote in favor is that it only lasts until mid-December; then Obama has to come back for another authorization vote. No dollar amount was attached, but that, I assume, just gives the administration carte blanche. Also, I was hoping that there would be stringent reporting requirements as to who will make up this new Free Syrian Army. But, according to Jonathan Weisman's "House Votes to Authorize Aid to Syrian Rebels in ISIS Fight," no such luck:

The legislation, drafted as an amendment to a routine bill to keep the government funded past Sept. 30, grants the president authority to train foreign forces to confront the Islamic State and to accept contributions in cash and in kind to help finance it. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to host the training of Syrian rebels, and the Obama administration promises to vet the fighters for reliability. 

To secure more support, the House Armed Services Committee added provisions mandating a report from the administration on how the training effort plays into a larger strategy to confront the Islamic State. Another provision requires the administration to keep Congress apprised of its progress and success. And the authorization expires in mid-December with the spending bill it would be attached to, ensuring lawmakers will revisit the issue in short order. Language specifies that the measure is not a broad authorization of force against the Islamic State.

Nothing to inspire confidence that this is anything other than business as usual, and that business is carving up Syria.

Now that the action moves to the Senate, my hope is that one of the presidential aspirants, a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, will stage a filibuster. But I will be disappointed because in the Senate there will not be a separate vote on the training and funding of this new army; it will be voted on as part of the overall government budget.

Sad that the most cogent statement in Weisman's story is from Yellow Dog Democrat Joe Manchin:

“Our past experience, after 13 years, everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial, not proven at all,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia and an opponent of the measure. “So what makes you think it’s going to be different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?”

Will the AUMF Pass Congress?

In trying to predict how Congress will vote on granting the Obama administration Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Syria, a good place to start is with the same question people should be asking about the chemical attack on August 21 on a Damascus suburb, "Cui bono?"

Who benefited from the gas attack? Certainly not the Syrian government. The opposition had everything to gain in perpetrating the attack because it provocatively crossed a red line that Obama had previously laid down. Since the Obama administration has been publicly predicting the collapse of the Assad regime for some time, and since it has a covert program in Jordan to train and arm rebels, and since the United States has worked to block United Nations investigators from entering Syria at the invitation of the government to assess the possibility that chemical arms were used in the Khan al-Assal massacre (the UN inspection team was in Syria last month to investigate Khan al-Assal when they were sidetracked by the East Ghouta chemical attack), the obvious conclusion to draw is that a chemical weapons attack -- any chemical attack -- would be blamed reflexively on the Syrian government.

But who benefits if Congress passes the AUMF? Certainly not the American people, who will have to pay for and fight any conflict, and not any senator or congressman or congresswoman who votes for it, whether Democrat or Republican, because he/she will likely, based on the overwhelming opposition so far to another foreign military intervention, face a spirited primary challenge. The only beneficiary in the U.S. body politic, besides the overarching "National Security State" with its weapons manufacturers and think-tank pundits and surveillance chiefs, is the Obama administration.

Why would the Republican-controlled House do anything to benefit Obama? The answer is that it wouldn't. That's why it is safe to say that the AUMF won't clear the House. There are some who argue that AIPAC is all powerful and money rules the roost in D.C. and Congress is totally venal. But we have a recent example where this wasn't the case -- sequestration. Republicans were willing to sacrifice the military in order to achieve across-the-board budget cuts.

The result in the Senate is anyone's guess. My sense is that despite Obama's upcoming Tuesday speech and all the over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric of Secretary of State John Kerry -- saying that this vote is the country's "Munich moment" or that Assad refuses to negotiate when it is in fact the United States and its ally the Syrian National Coalition that refuses to negotiate -- the public will not shift its anti-war stance.

Senators are more insulated than those who serve in the House: their terms are longer and they can raise money more easily. There will be senators who will stick with Obama thinking that they can weather the storm of voter disgust. But will there be enough to get the AUMF out of the senate? The Obama administration can make no missteps. All the news coming out of Syria has to go the administration's way. There has to be a positive response to Obama's call for war from the White House. People suddenly have to soften to John Kerry's brazen warmongering. Rand Paul's filibuster has to fizzle.

That's a lot of stuff that needs to break the warhawks' way. This doesn't mean it can't happen. The state is powerful, and there's always the possibility of a watered-down AUMF squeaking through. But at the end of the day, even if an AUMF in some form emerges from the Senate, you're still left with a No vote in the House. Shenanigans in any House-Senate conference are almost guaranteed. Assuming Obama waits this long to launch the Tomahawks, the United Nations report on what happened in East Ghouta should be available by then.